Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - March 7, 2006. ~ .~g~+~da 1-o icle~- c~>PJ CENTRAL POINT CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA March 7, 2006 - 7:00 p.m. Next Planning Commission Resolution No. 685 I. MEETING CALLED 70 ORDER II. ROLL CALL Connie Mocrygemba ,Candy Fish, Damian Idiart, Mack Lewis, Scott Mangold, Chuck Piland, and Wayne Riggs, III. CORRESPONDENCE IV. MINUTES A. Review and approval of February 7, 2006, Planning Commission Minutes. V, PUBLIC APPEARANCES VI. BUSINESS Pgs t-is A. A Public Hearing to review Tentative Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Planned Unit Development applications for a proposed mixed use business park known as Table Rock Business Park, within a M-1, Industrial zoning district. The subject property is located at 3791 Table Rock Road and is located south of E. Pine Street, west of Table Rock Road and east of Bear Creek. Pgs 19-28 B. A Public Nearing to review a Tentative Plan application for the purpose of creating 2 single family lots located within an R-1- 10, Residentia{ Single Family zoning district. The subject property is located at 3634 Grant Road, south of Blue Heron, west of Mendolia Way, north of Beall Lane and east of Grant Road. Pgs 29-33 C. A public meeting to review a tree removal application, within a previously approved Tentative Plan for a subdivision known as Jan's Court. Pgs34-45 D. A Public Meeting to review a request to amend a previously approved Tentative Plan application for Phase 1 of Twin Creek Crossing subdivision. The amendment would create a total of PC030706 Planning Commission Minutes February 7, 2006 Page I City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes February ~, 2006 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT ~:oo P.M. II. ROLL CALL: Chairperson Connie Moczygemba, Candy Fish, Damian Idiart, Mack Lewis, Scott Mangold, Chuck Piland, and Wayne Riggs were present. Also in attendance were: Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director; Don Burt, Planning Manager; Ken Gerschler, Community Planner; and Lisa Morgan, Planning Technician. III. CORRESPONDENCE There was no correspondence. N. MINLTI'ES Commissioner Fish made a motion to approve the minutes from January g, 2006. Commissioner Idiart seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Fish, yes; Idiart, yes; Lewis, yes; Mangold, yes; Piland, yes; and Riggs, abstain. Motion passed. V. PUBLICAPPF.ARANCES There were questions regarding Miller Estates from residents in the audience. Mr. Humphrey, Community Development Director went through the current status and what the Planning Department was trying to accomplish. He stated that it would hopefully be brought back to the Planning Commission in March, 2006. VI. A. A Public Hearing to review a Tentative Plan application for a proposed pad lot development known as Oakglenn. The subject property is located at r42 Freeman Road and is located squth of E. Pine Street, on the corner of Oak Street and Freeman Road. Planning Commission Minutes February 7, 2006 Page 2 Commissioner Piland made a site visit. Ken Gerschler, Community Planner presented the staff report. Mr. Gerschler stated the Applicant has met the code requirements for the R-3, Residential Multiple Family zoning district. Mr. Gerschler read the applicable codes and discussed other issues relevant to the approval. There were discussions regarding existing sewer, storm water, access to the property on this corner, and the yellow painted curb. Mark Skillman, applicant stated that he thought the issue with access was resolved after meeting with Matt Samitore, Development Services Coordinator. Mr. Skillman added that they thought this would be better use than an apartment complex and it would be an asset to the community. Dorothy Just, a property owner adjacent to the project area expressed concerns about water drainage, traffic and sewer connections. She stated storm water comes across their property to the subject property. Mark Skillman said that he will bring the storm water issue up to his engineer to control drainage and the sewer line will be upgraded. The public portion of the meeting was closed. The commissioner's continued to express concern for the access on Oak Street so close to Freeman Road. Mr. Gerschler stated the Planning Commission could approve the Tentative Plan and have the applicant bring a Site Plan application back to them for their approval. Commissioner Lewis made a motion to adopt Resolution 684, supporting the fmdings for approval for a Tentative Plan application for a pad lot development lrnown as Oakglenn. Commissioner Fish seconded the motion ROLL CALL: Fish, yes; Idiart, yes; Lewis, yes; Mangold, yes; Piland, yes; and Riggs, yes. Motion carried. Planning Commission Minuses February 7, 2006 Page 3 VII. MISCELLANEOUS A. Discussion of Upcoming Proposed Code Amendments. Don Burt, Planning Manager; explained that in April we will be considering amendments to CPMC i.24 -Procedures as well as the second batch of code amendments. There were questions the definitions of shopping centers and large retail establishments and the source of staff s information. Staff was directed to prepare a summary of their February ~ staff report. David Painter, of the Citizen Advisory Committee gave his comments from the CAC meeting discussing the definition of a shopping center. Mr. Painter feels this should be controlled by the zoning. He added that he doesn't feel like the CAC actually agreed on anything. Accessory dwelling units were discussed and there was a general consensus to proceed with provisions allowing accessory dwelling units if Single Family Residential zones. B. Miscellaneous Updates Mr. Humphrey reported that: There will be an open house on March 6~ for the official opening of the new City Hall offices. The City would like to continue to have open houses quarterly. The Rogue Creamery will be having a cheese producers event on March i~ & i8th. An ADHOC Committee has been formed. The City owns a portion of the old Burton property now and will be making gradual improvements. Sinyard's has a building that crosses over the property line. The new Rail road crossing design is close to being complete. Planning Commission Minutes Febraary 7, 2006 Page 4 VIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Piland made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Mangold seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 8:4o P.M. TABLE ROCK BUSINESS PARK STAFF REPORT CENTRAL POINT STAFF REPORT March 7, 2006 Planning Department Tom Humphrey,AICP, Community Development Director/ Assistant City Administrator AGENDA ITEM: Planning Commission review of Planned Unit Development, Tentative Subdivision and Conditional Use Permit application for a mixed use commercial-industrial development named Table Rock Business Park. The proposal is located within the M-1, Industrial-General Zoning District on property identified as Tax Lot 37 2W 12B, 800; Table Rock Business Pazk LLC, Applicant. (Hoflbuhr and Associates, Agent) STAFF SOURCE: Ken Gerschler, Community Planner BACKGROUND: The subject property is located south of the Governors Shovel Ready Site and was annexed into the City during 2005. The Planned Unit Development Tentative Subdivision and Conditional Use Permit would offer an opportunity for the developer to market a mix of industrial parcels together with other commercial parcels and eleven (11) buildings with "flexible office space" The M-1 Industrial Zone has no provision for commercial and office activities which explains the need for Planned Unit Development and Conditional Use Permit applications. FINDINGS: The Planning Commission could approve the applications as submitted provided the applicants meet the criterion listed in Chapters 16.10, 17.68 and 17.72 and numerous conditions. While the Planning Department concurs with the applicant's findings (Attachment "C") the Planning Department has included supplemental findings (Attachment "D") to address and clarify the requirements of the Municipal Code where necessary. Staff finds that the tentative partition is compliant with code. The Planned Unit Development and Conditional Use Permit are not compliant but can be made compliant subject to the recommended conditions of approval identified in Attachment "H". ISSUES: In considering an approval of this site plan approval application, the Planning Department identifies that there are several items worthy of consideration: The preliminary planned unit development plan and tentative subdivision plat (Attachment "A") depict the development of eleven (11) buildings that could be used for "flexible" office space. These structures, depending upon use and elevations would need to meet the provisions of code pertaining to yard requirements (setbacks, heights, etc) and off-street parking requirements. Applicable conditions have been included in Attachment "H". Table Rock Business Park 06049.doc Page 1 of 2 2. The overall plan is for a mixed use development within the M-1 industrial district which is zoned for industrial manufacturing. As a conditional use, the code will allow commercial and office space, provided that the activities directly serve the industrial use or the employees of the industrial use. The applicants have requested that the project be allowed to integrate the permitted uses identified within the C-2, Commercial-Professional district but most of the uses are not necessarily appropriate in conjunction with the M-1 district. Staff has recommended which uses could be construed as appropriate in the supplemental findings (Attachment "D"). A condition has also been included (Attachment "H") to require that a separate conditional use permit be required for each activity since this will allow the Planning Commission to evaluate suitability and relationship to the M-1 district. The Public Works Staff Report (Attachment "E") and Jackson County Roods/Pazks (Attachment "F") have identified several issues to be resolved. Joseph Way will need to be renamed as there is another street within the City with the same name. Each of the streets within the development is proposed as private and Public Works will require these facilities to be public and constructed to standard. A development permit from Jackson County will be required for Hamrick Road and Table Rock Road access improvements. 4. No utilities are available in the immediate vicinity at this time (Attachments "E" and "G"). The applicants are working with an adjoining property owner to the north to connect to facilities that aze located further west near the Hamrick Road curve at the LTM plant. A conditional of approval (Attachment "H") will require that water, sewer, storm drain, electrical and road infrastructure be available at the site prior to application for final plan approval. EXHIBITS: Exhibit "A" -Preliminary PUD Plan, Tentative Plat Exhibit "B" -Conceptual Building Elevation Exhibit "C" -Applicant's Findings Exhibit "D" -Planning Department Supplemental Findings Exhibit "E" -Public Works Department Staff Report Exhibit "F" -Jackson County Roads Correspondence Exhibit "G" -Rogue Valley Sewer Service Correspondence Exhibit "H" -Planning Department Recommended Conditions Exhibit "I" -Proposed Resolution ACTION: Consideration of Resolution No. _, approving the tentative subdivision, conditional use permit and tentative planned unit development plan. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Resolution No._, subject to the staff reports, correspondence from agencies and the conditions of approval. Table Rock Business Park 06049.doc Page 2 of 2 ~~ ~XatlY~iPw~6s~+Np ,~c c is D 61'>~> !J! ~K 1' I, A ~ ~ a6~FP~~w~u_NP{ ~ I ~~~ ii '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / / ~-----1----_/ ~F~ ~~8~i1 I • ~ Iftle ~~ ~ I ~! i ~~~®z ~ ~ ~~ 1 ~ i ¢ F• l !! 1 / 6 ~ ~ • : ~ / ~ sv.N.._~~.~.v-...JL... Y ~' ~ R e a T. _ ~-_ _ _ ~ ~r~g~~~iuii,~ I ~ s ~ ~ (. I ~a s •, N ~~~ # ~t ~ f ~ F F~ X ~~ ;~~ ~ t , ~Fi S~ i ~ -~-~. • :~ ~~; t _ _ _EX~BT~tY~_ _ J08EPH WA7 - 33 D ~ ~ ~I~~i~ g g ~ ig CCCCCC ~St m r QS A + i o~~~~~ i' S~ s ~ Z ~Q 777~j000 A ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ° ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ r ~ D . t ~ ~~5 ~ ~~ ~ m ~~ ~ A ~~ ~ $~~ ~ g ~~ ~ D i t / ~ ~ " `~ I / m: ;~ ;€ - ~x ~Pa ~P~ ~ r~ ' s € ` _ _~ ~~- '--- -----h--~-- Ey`-~ ~. ~. ~ i ~` i f` i 1 - - _ tABL£ROCK ROAD- _ - F 1. - - - -- - ~;s: = i~ ~ k ~ s ~ ~~. e ~Z TENTATIVE PLAT TABLE ROCK BUSINESS PARK, LLC. ~ awue .. ilE Htl V4 m C[cIn14 ilb, R4 ui QIY Q C~IIFN. MNf. J.lX2Q1 alllh'. [R N'ltKNt~/GUNER BURYEYPIG TA0121KU.OVMCN rAMCIIG IpRUR~FlKCLIiFi,K rG. CNf 9 MO YA} YfW CR M~ YI 1'lpgO C~6fg11t01 t51 ^IO gCAO1 CEO{ , . , IMU TI~~Iff~ (M1 T1~~µ11 S I I , ~ 11 1~ j i 1 1 i1 T II 11 ~~ ~ I I 1 1 1 ~~ I I # I I ~ ~ ~ ~~_ I I T~ 11 1 ~, i t y + i t 1 } it it ~ \ ; ~ i I' !I ., 1 ~ i (~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~<~ z 1 ~ 1 I ~~~ •q• i I_ \ ~~i ~>o~ I~ ~ .~ I I , 1 i I I I ~~~a---- t~ _ ~,~}I ., I .s ~„ r w ,` _ ~ ,, ~ 1 ~ ~ i IuEw ~~ .~u l.d... ~ 'N I ~'.~i _. . 1 I , ~. ,.1t1, 1 ~ .: IP iIRPLf •A• I i ~ __ 1R/Gi •C 1RPLt A• ~ fly t ~ Q~lt i ~I ~. _ _. ~_ ~ r I .= -- . k 11 /~ __~_._ _. .•.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y~4 '. .._w Wi~wewKYt lil I :i Www w 1 m ( _ _.__.__ .____. Its ~ w ,L ~ ' ~ FHAvF 9 - "I ilk .~... ' ~ ", "' ~' . v. or lu I,.I, I Ij ..c ~ I ,_ r .' ~, ~ •~ ~... .. ____.__..._._ i ..~ _ ~~ ~ I ,...~...., I!< ~~ ,1 I .I~ i .~:. ,... ., y .~ ~ _. . • ~ I ~ ~ ---- ---- -~~- 'vl ~~~ -~------ ---== seo ~'=-- .~ --.....___- ,.~~-~ -_-_ ~,. .\ .\ 1 I I I I I I I uwa , ... __._._._ .oawwwv` , .. .. .osnuuwhvr ~,o a ea• ,u fr~+ !' CYr 9~~ I i I I~ 1 , I I I I I I I i I I 1 I I i t , i ~ _~_-_-____y euwusua 1 wr ~ ~ur• ~~ I 1 I I I L. _.___. 1 i 1 c~ .¢. . ,` „~ ~r „~. ~.,~: ~, w~, ~:~H ,ten,... _. ATTACHMENT " C: BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION ) FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ) FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ON ) AND 17.40 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF ) TABLE ROCK ROAD AND AIRPORT ROAD. ) IN THE M-1 ZONING DISTRICT. ) RECITALS: Property Owner/Applicant Table Rock Business Park LLC PO Box 43 Medford, Oregon 97501 Agent- Hoffbuhr and Associates 880 Golf View Drive #201 Medford, Oregon 97504 Property Description- Area- Zoning- INTRODUCTION: 37-2W -12B-tax lot 800 17.40 acres M-1 Table Rock business Park is centrally located among several hundred acres of industrial zoned land in both the City of Central Point and the City of Medford. The subject property is also in close proximity the Medford Airport. it is the applicant's wish to develop an industrial/office/commercial mixed use project on the subject property. The reasoning behind the proposal is that the inclusion of the commercial uses with the business park wilt provide support services for the surrounding industrial land thereby reducing vehicle miles traveled. It is for this reason that the PUD and Conditional use permit are being sought. The applicant is also making application for a Subdivision Tentative Plan approval concurrently with the PUD approval. t7 1 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA: The Application procedures and Criteria for a Planned Unit Development are listed in Chapter 17.68 of the Central Point Land Development Ordinance. These Criteria are addressed as follows: 17.68.10 Purpose. The purpose of the PUD is to provide for commercial support services for several hundred acres of industrial zoned land and the Medford Airport. The PUD will provide a harmonious variety of commercial, office and industrial uses in a compact and attractive design located on a major arterial street. The benefits to the City of Central Point will include reducing vehicle miles traveled, efficient use of existing infrastructure and an attractive enhancement of an industrial center. 17.68.20 Size of the planned unit development. The subject site is in excess of the minimum standard of five acres. 17.68.040 Criteria to grantor deny a PUD. A. The proposed design of Table Rock Business Park integrates commercial and office uses into the midst of an industrial area. The inclusion of the commercial uses is an exception to the uses allowed within the M-1 Zoning District. The commercial and office uses which are an exception to the M-1 zoning district will only be allowed within Phases 1,2 and 4 of the proposed project. Phases 1, 2 and 4 comprise the easterly 5.2 acres of the proposed project or approximately 30% of the subject site. It is proposed that Phases 1 and 2 be developed consistent with the G2, Commercial -Professional District. The uses allowed by the G2 zoning district will complement and support those of the M-1 district. Phases 1 and 2 8. The proposed project is in conformance with the policies, zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan City of Central. Central Point has been a leader in Southern Oregon in utilizing the Planned Unit Development process and employing the concept of mixed use. Chapter 6 of the Comprehensive Plan contains specific criteria pertaining to industrial land within the City of Central Point. The proposed project complies with criteria 6-1, 6-2,6-7, 6-8,6-10,6-14,6-16,6-17,6-18 and 6-20. ~~ C. The proposed project will have minimal adverse impact if any on the surrounding properties. D. The applicants and owners of the proposed project are well known in the community, experienced with property development and have the financial capability to carry out the proposed plan. They fully intend to begin construction as soon as all necessary approvals are gained from the City of Central Point. E. The proposed project incorporates important street connections that will in the future provide improved connectivity to the entire area. The extension of Airport Road will be an important link to Hamrick Road to provide and alternate North -South route. The site plan includes private road and driveway circulation in addition to the proposed public road. F. The proposed commercial/office uses are proposed to provide the surrounding area with services that would otherwise not be allowed by the industrial zoning. The location on a major arterial and in close proximity to the Medford/Jackson County airport further justifies the need for the proposed commercial/office uses. G. As discussed previously the circulation plans will not only serve this project but will improve connectivity for the surrounding area. H. The westerly portion of the property may contain wetlands. if jurisdictional wetlands are found to exist they will be preserved in accordance with state and federal regulations. I. The proposed project will be compatible with the surrounding area. 1. The proposed PUD will decrease vehicle miles traveled by providing services for people working in the surrounding industrial area. If the subject property were developed solely as industrial the impacts on the surrounding streets would be greater. 17.68.050 Preliminary development plan. See attached PUD plan ~~ 3 17.68.080 Exceotion to zoning and subdivision titles. An exception to the code is being requested to allow uses consistent with the G2 zoning district within phases 1, 2 and 4 of the proposed project. It is also requested setbacks and signage within phases 1, 2 and 4 is consistent with the G2 zoning district. No other exceptions to the code are being requested. CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA: Chapter 17.76.040 sets forth the findings necessary for the Planning Commission to approve an application for a Conditional Use Permit. The appropriate findings are as follows: A. The subject site contains 17.4 acres which is sufficient for the proposed mixed use development within the M-1 zoning district. The applicant is requesting 5,2 acres of the site be granted an exception through the PUD process to allow development consistent with the G2 zoning district. The Planning commission can find that the subject site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use and meet all other development and lot requirements. 8. The subject site is located on Table Rock Road a designated major collector, in addition street improvements are proposed which would allow for the connection of Airport Road to a new north-south road that will provide a future connection to Hamrick Road. These improvements will not only serve the proposed project improve traffic connectivity and circulation for the surrounding area. The Planning Commission can find that the site has adequate access to a public street and that the street is adequate in size and condition to effectively accommodate the traffic that is expected to be generated by the proposed use. C. The proposed incorporates industrial, office and commercial uses within an M-1 industrial zone. As shown on the site plan of the proposed project these uses have been thoughtfully integrated in an attractive and functional manner. The surrounding area is almost exclusively designated for industrial use and will not be aversely impacted by the proposed PUD. The Planning Commission can find that the proposed use will have no significant adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted use thereof. t"t AT'TACIIMI'1NT ll SUPPLI;MI;NTARY STAI~'F I+INDINGS Table Rock Business Park, FILE 06049 Tentative Land Partition A. There are no minimum site area requirements iu the M-1 district, except as necessary to provide for required parking, loading and yard spaces. Finding 17.48.060: The application for tentative plan identifies that a total of hventy-four (24) lots would be developed in three phases with parcels sizes between 2,880 and 65,848 square feet. Conclusion 17.48.060: The tentative plat demonstrates that this Finding 17.48.060 can be met provided that the required parking loading and yard spaces can be met per Chapters 17.48.070 and 17.64 of the Central Point Municipal Code. Conditio~ral Use Permit A. The Central Point Zone Map identifies the subject property as M-1, Industrial which allows as a conditional use "business offices and commercial uses that are compatible and closely related in their nature of the bzsiness to permitted uses in the M-1 district, or that would be established to serve primarily the zzses, employees or customers of the M-1 district. " Finding 17.48.040 : The applicants have requested that the conditional use permit allow uses that are found within the C-2, Commercial-Professional District but most of the uses cannot be found to be closely related to the permitted uses within the M-1 district. Several uses identified in the C-2 district could serve the uses, employees and customers o the M-1 district and these are: 1. Banks and similar financial institutions since employee and business interests could reasonably use these services without traveling on the surround road network. 2. Medical services, clinics and laboratories that directly serve the uses within the M-1 district as research and development facilities. 3. Architecture and engineering offices that complement the design and manufacturing processes for a permitted use within the M-1 district. 4. Building, Electric and Plumbing contractor offices that are related to commercial permit activities complementary to a permitted use in the M-1 district. 5. Other personal uses that could be used by employees of activities in the surrounding M-1 district such as barber/beauty shop, tailor/shoe repair and convenience market. 6. Travel agency and child day care center if these uses could reasonably serve the employees working within the M-1 district. Conclusion 17.48.040: The Conditional Use Permit can allow limited business and office uses provided that they directly relate to the M-1 district. The application for this conditional use is vague in that there are no specific activities listed. Based upon this the Planning Department has attached a condition (Attachment "F") requiring the applicant or successors to obtain a Table Rock Business Park Supplemental Findings 06049findings.doc Page 1 of 2 !t conditional use permit for each activity which will allow the Planning Commission to examine relativity and compatibility of the proposed use to the existing activities within the M-1 District. B. An application for conditional use permit shall contain information that includes the names and authorizations from all relevant parties, legal description, maps and findings. Finding 17.76.020: The applicant has submitted the required documentation for the conditional use permit application and this finding has been met. C. The application must demonstrate that there is adequate access to a public street or highway with size and condition to meet the needs of the development. The use must not have any significant adverse effect on abutting properties or existing uses. Finding 17.76.040: The proposal suggests the use of private roads that connect into Table Rock Road to the east and to Hamrick Road north across an adjoining parcel. This fmding can me met subject to the Public Works Staff Report (Attachment "E") and the recommended conditions of approval (Attachment "F"). The site of the proposed use is adequate in size and surrounded predominantly by vacant parcels where no significant adverse effects would be realized. This portion of the fording can be met. Planned Unit Development D. To approve or deny a planned unit development "the planning commission shall find whether or not the standards of this chapter...are either met, can be met by observance of conditions" Each of the criteria described in Chapter 17.68.040 has been adequately addressed by the applicant with the exception being 17.68.040 (f) which identifies "that commercial development in a . planned unit development is needed at the proposed location to provide adequate commercial facilities of the type proposed ". Finding 17.68.040 (F') :The applicants have requested that approximately 30 percent of the site consist of "flexible office space" uses that are typically found within the C-2, Commercial- Professional District. As mentioned in the above findings relating to the conditional use permit, most of the uses in the C-2 zone cannot be found to be closely related to the permitted uses within the M-1 district. The conditional use permit requires that the proposed cornmercial and office space be subservient to the M-1 zone uses or for use by the employees of the M-1 zone uses. This finding can be met subject to compliance with the aforementioned staff supplemental finding and the conditions of approval in Attachment "F". Table Rock Business Park Supplemental Findings 06049findings.doc Page 2 of 2 `;ti~wva..: Public Works Department ~~t,r - _ __ _ CENTRAL POINT C?reyon PUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPORT February 16,2006 i l~~t~V~Itl1Eltl A "~L 9k Bob Pierce, Director Matt Samitore, Dev. Services Coord. AGENDA ITEM: Twenty-four Lot Subdivision for 37-2W-12B, Tax Lots 800 Applicant: Table Rock Business Park, LLC. P.O. Box 43, Medford, OR 97501 Zoning: M-1, Industrial Zoning Traffic: The subject property was included in the E. Pine Street corridor study. No traffic study is warranted for this development. Infrastructure: No city facilities exist near or adjacent to the subject property. Engineering and Development Plans and Permits: The Central Point Public Works Department is charged with management of the City's infrastructure, including streets, waterworks, and storm water drainage facilities. In general, the Department's "Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works Construction" shall govern how public facilities are to be constructed. The Developer is encouraged to obtain the latest version of these specifications from the Public Works Department. In general, the plan submittal shall include plan and profile for streets, water, storm drainage and sanitary sewers, storm drainage calculations, storni drainage basin map, erosion control plan, utility and outside agency notifications and approvals. The plan may also include applicable traffic studies, legal descriptions and a traffic control plan. A Public Works Permit will only be issued after the Department Director approves the final construction drawings. After approval, the fees associated with the development will be calculated and attached to the public works permit. All fees are required to be paid in full at the time the Public Works Permit is issued, except Public Works Inspection fees. After project completion during the final plat application process, the Public Works Inspector will calculate the appropriate amount of inspection time to assess the developer. Before the final plat application is processed the developer must pay the relevant inspections fees and bond for any uncompleted improvements (as determined by the Public Works Director). 140 South Third Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 •541.664.3321 -Fax 541.664.6384 ~. Conditions of Approval: 1. Right-of-Way Dedication and Imnrovement -Applicant will be required to dedicate ten feet of frontage for future improvements of Table Rock Road to a Collectoc• Street. Applicant shall also construct half- street improvements along the westerly side of Table Rock Road in accordance with the Central Point three-lane collector standard. Applicant is eligible for a percentage of a Street SDC Credit for this dedication and construction. 2. Public Utility EasemenC - As part of the Final Plat aten-feet wide utility easement shall be placed immediately behind the existing and proposed rights-of--way. Private Streets -The City of Central Point does not allow for the construction of private streets for the proposed uses and traffic volume. The private streets indicated on the tentative plat shall be converted to meet the requirements of a standard residential street section and design. The Public Works Department will not approve construction drawings or a final plat application until this change is complete. 4. Landscape and Irrigation Plans and Imnrovements -Prior to issuance of the final plat, the applicant shall submit for approval by the Public Works Director, a landscape plan for all Street frontages. The plan shall include construction plans, irrigation plans, details and specifications for the trees to be planted within the right-of--way area. Plantings shall comply with Municipal Code Section 12.36. Tree plantings shall have at least a 1 %2" trunk diameter at the time of installation. All street trees shall be irrigated with an automatic underground irrigation system. 5. Utilities - No City utilities exist near or adjacent to the subject property. The applicant will need to work with neighbors to extend facilities from Hamrick Road. 6. Jackson County Roads: A full review of the civil improvement plans with an accompanying permit will be required by Jackson County Roads. 7. Street Name (Joseph Wayj -Applicant will need to rename Joseph Way to another street name. Joseph Street currently exists in another location of Central Point. 140 South Third Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 •541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384 ~ .~ FEE/24/2nnF,/FRI 10:8 JRCKSON COUNTY BOADS FA;{ No, 541 774 6295 ATl°ACFINIENT " ~ F, 00i/i;01 z~dnas JACKSON COUNTY xoad.~ February 23, 2006 Attention: Lisa Morgan Clty of Central Polnt Planning 115 South Second Street Central Point, OR 97502 RE: Subdivision off Table Rock Road - acounty-maintained road. Planning File: 06049. Dear Lisa: Eric A`iemeyer, PE Tr¢jf2c & Aev¢/op~~~c~r/ 1s7,~6ree> pa0 A/p¢lope Rued Whlre Clry, OR 87503 Phones (569)77d-8290 FeX: (569) T7d~ffi85 nlemeYelQJecksoncouNy.ofc w.w~Jeckaoncounty.arg Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this application for Tentative Plat approval for Table Rock Business Park, LLC. The property is located on the west side df Table Rock Road across from Airport Road. Roads and Parks has the following comments: 1. The applicant shall submit construction drawings to Jackson County Roads and Parks and obtain county permits if required. 2. Please note that Table Rock Road (County Arterial) has a variable right-of--way. The Average Daily Traffic count was 10,739 as of July 2003 two-hundred feet north of Airport Road. There will be no direct parcel access to Table Rock Road. 3. Roads and Parks require a five-foot strip along the Table Rock Road frontage be reserved for future acquisition for road use. 4. Fairchild Way shall only connect to Joseph Way. Roads and Parks wilt not allow access to Table Rock Road. 5. Jackson County Roads and Parks would like to review and comment on the hydraulic report including the calculations and drainage plan. Capacity improvements or on site detention, if necessary, shalt be installed at the expense of the applicant. 6. No riparian vegetation should be disturbed. Since~~~r///ely, ,. / for r c Niemeyer, PE ra Ic eve opmen Engineer - ~C . ~lti. ~ ~ I L W U r IL5 i:\~iglnsednp\DevalopmenNCIrIES\CN'f RLPT\08049.wpd ~_ `~ 03/0212006 09:12 541-6647171 RVS PAGE 01/01 ATTACHMENT " ~ ~°~ ~><~s~~r ~ .~1~~~ ~ March 1, 2006 ROGUE VALLEY SEWER SERVICES t,o~tion: 138 West Vitas Road, CWlira7 Point, OR • Mailing Addrrxc: P.O. Box 3130, Cu,aal Point, O.R 75020005 Tct. (541) 6646300, rax (64I) 664.7191 wvw.RVSS.ua lien Gerschler FAX 664-6384 City of Ceutial Point Planning Department 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Re: Table Rock $us[ness Park, File #06049 Deaz Ken, Sewer service to the proposed developtrrent will require ofd site sewer construction. The closest existing sewer plain crosses Airport Road approximately 300 feet East of Table Rock Road. Connection to this main lute may be possible, however there maybe topographic constraints that would make this a difficult connection.. Another option for sewer service would be to connect to the North, through the proposed Modoc Subdivision. If this option is chosen the project would be dependent upon cotttpletion of the Modoc Subdivision. Tho proposed development must wmply with the water qualityrequirements of the Phase 2 NPDBS permit which aze currently being developed. We xequest that the following conditions be met prior. to final plat approval: I. Applicant must construct a new public sewer. train in accordance with RVS standards. This main line must be accepted by RVS prior to final plat. 2. Applicant must submit a stormwater plan to RVS to demonstrate compliance with the stormwater quality requirements of the Phase 2 NPDES permit. Feel free to tail me if you have any questions regarding sewer service for this project. Si~n~~er~y, C%" /~_.. Cari. Tappert, P.E. District Engineer K:\D.A ~. 7 ATTACIIMENT II PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Table Rock Business Park, FILE 06049 Check Box Number Description of Condition 1 of 5 The applicant shall comply with all federal, state and local regulations, standards and requirements applicable to the project area. 2 of 5 The applicant shall comply with Chapters 17.48.070 and 17.64 of the Central Point Municipal Code as they pertain to yard and off-street parking requirements. 3 of 5 The applicant or successors obtain a conditional use permit for each activity as this will allow the Planning Commission to examine relativity and compatibility to the existing uses within the M-1 District. 4 Of 5 Water, sewer, storm drain, electrical and road infrastructure shall be available at the site prior to submission of the application for final plan. Evidence of compliance from each respective provider will be required. 5 of 5 Conditions, Covenants and Restriction will be submitted to the City prior to submission of the application for final plan. \\CPCHSI\PI,\2006 LAND USE FILES\06049 TABLE ROCK BUSINESS PARK TP, CUP & PUD\06049COA.DOC { ~. D. Chapter 16.76, relating to compliance with City requirements, access to public roads, architecture, site layout and landscaping. Section 3. Conditional Approval The concurrent applications for tentative land subdivision, tentative plamred unit development and conditional use pcnnit herein are hereby approved, subject to the conditions set forth on Exhibits "A", "B", and "C" attached hereto by reference incorporated herein, imposed under authority of CPMC Chapter 16.36. Passed by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 7a' day of March, 2006. Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: City Representative Approved by me this 7a` day of March, 2006. Plaiming Commission Chair Plaiming Commission Resolution No. (03/07/2005) ~. COOK MINOR PARTITION Planning Department STRFF REPORT Tom Humphrey,AICP, Community Development Director/ Assistant City Administrator STAFIi' RRPORT March 7, 2006 AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of a tentative land partition to create two parcels in the Residential (R-1) Zoning District on Property Identified as Tax Lot 37 2W l OBC, 2300; Richard and Andrea Cook, Applicants. STAFF SOURCE: Ken Gerschler, Community Planner BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to create a "flaglot" partition of an existing 0.98 acre parcel into two lots of 0.98 acres and 0.70 acres respectively. FINDINGS: The applicant's tentative plat map (Exhibit "A") contains the required submittal information described in Chapter 16.10 and adequately addresses all approval criteria as set forth in Table 1 below. This application was submitted prior to the City modifications of the land use ordinance and therefore the application is not subject to the latest minimum/maximum lot size requirements. As a supplement to the findings staff has included by reference, as a condition of approval agency correspondence Exhibits "B" through "F". Table 1 Code Section Requirement Compliance 17.20.050 Minimum 10,000 square foot lot size Yes Minimum width 60 feet interior lots Minimum width 70 feet corner lots No lot de th Requirement 16.36.040 Flaglot parcel must have 20,000 square feet. Area Yes calculation must exclude the flagpole. Access must be aved. ISSUES: In considering an approval of this tentative partition application, the Planning Department identifies that there are two issues worthy of consideration: 1. This partition is being perforned to segregate the existing home (Parcel 1) from a larger undeveloped portion of land at the rear of the project area (Parcel 2). Parcel 2 will eventually become part of a future subdivision and the Public Works Department has included conditions to ensure that adequate infrastructure is installed. Cook Tenative Land Partition 06059.doc Page I of 2 SCAB' 7~ = SD, ~ I ^ 3H. IH 1 ~\ ss ~ \ i TAX7L07g10D \\_ ~ rZ' \ ~ , \1 \ d \~, F- \\ \\ ~ 4 ~ 5 ~~ ~~22~2 •. N 2 r caws .i- ~ ~ :~\ ~~ ~ „~ \ ~. 7AX tOTOB~DO ~i~ A 5,39 ~ ,~ ,. ~• ~C t '. y615 5 ~ ro a ti- ~ ~ i, ~ i'115 ~~ ~ u• Rm~ ~ ~rrd ~ \ T~ZLOQ9700 \\ \d\ ~\ ~\ \~~\~~ ~'~ ---1 f-- ~.~ _~~~ -" .~ 1 I II 7PX t0T0~9 2 ~ 1 1 1 ~~ I A6 ~~ ~ I ~ ~+ 4`` 7 as 1 t N Y II ~ 37 L0T 80 ~ TAx t92i t ~ 1 N ~^~~ ~ 1 1 1 ---"!+~ ~C` I ~ 1 ! ~ 11 R T~ L0T08g20 ~ t `~ ate' ~corm~st B (/ 1 ~' I ~ Loci N ~! ~" Z ~w ole ~Mre6oR e,~oNe~ pal lY'o W 372W108C 1 ~~~P~ f ~ 11~ ((//~~I~~`M O TAX L0T ism ~ '~ ~~ PAR J , d3 ~ } i I ~ l 6. ~ - `cw° Ir If 3~ }~. 1 ~IRRIGAflON BJ% I J /~ f 1 ~ TAX ~0T0Hg18 // ~~// _ _ ~s I i:G J ~' l ~p C[w^ 11 k2 i ~D4 4} J6 CawR I ft APPRO%IW~p Ipp~IGaiIOM1 t 41 ~VElrp PER 92-35bT1 `' 1 I 372W708C 1 rax Lor jg1 372W706400 I TAX LOT 2 11 I 1 I Puhiic Works Department ~:. c't•,m CENTRAL POINT JP^YCZ''E Bob Pierce, Director Matt Samitore, Dev. Services Coord. PUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPORT Tebruary 2, 2006 AGENDA ITEM: Two Lot Partition for 37-2W-lOBC, Tax Lots 2300 Applicant: Coldest, LLC 3634 Grant Road, Central Point, OR 97502 Zoning: R-1-10, Residential Single-Family Traffic: Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, a two lot partition will generate approximately 1.99 peak hour trips (PHT). The City of Central Point typically requires traffic studies for any development that generates more than 25 PHT. No traffic study is warranted for this development. Infrastructure: Water: The nearest waterline is in Mendolia Way or at the intersection of Grant Road and Blue Heron Drive. Storm Drain: Curb-side ditches serve as the only storm drain facility within the area. Street Section: Grant Road is currently atwenty-six feet wide country road. It has been identified in the City Transportation System Plan as a collector street. Engineering and Development Plans and Permits: The Central Point Public Works Department is charged with management of the City's infrastructure, including streets, waterworks, and storm water drainage facilities. In general, the Department's "Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works Construction" shall govern how public facilities are to be constructed. The Developer is encouraged to obtain the latest version of these specifications from the Public Works Department. In general, the plan submittal shall include plan and profile for streets, water, stoma drainage and sanitary sewers, stonn drainage calculations, stonn drainage basin map, erosion control plan, utility and outside agency notifications and approvals. The plan may also include applicable traffic studies, legal descriptions and a traffic control plan. A Public Works Pennit will only be issued after the Department Director approves the final construction drawings. After approval, the fees associated with the development will be calculated and attached to the public works permit. All fees are required to be paid in full at the time the Public Works Permit is issued, except Public Works Inspection fees. After project completion during the final plat application process, the Public Works Inspector will calculate the appropriate amount of inspection time to assess the developer. Before the final plat application is processed the developer must pay the relevant inspections fees and bond for any uncompleted improvements (as determined by the Public Works Director). 140 South Third Street =~ Central Point, OR 97502 •541.664.3321 > Fax 541.664.6384 Ff Conditions of Approval: Water -Applicant will be required to bring atwelve-inch waterline through Mendolia to the subject property via acquiring an easement from one of the property owners or by extending the twelve-inch waterline from the intersection of Grant Road and Blue Heron Drive. Applicant will be eligible for SDC Credit for upsizing the water line from an eight-inch line. 2. Right-of--Way Dedication -Applicant will be required to dedicate ten feet of frontage for future improvements of Grant Road to a Collector Street. Applicant is eligible for Street SDC Credit for this dedication. 3. Half-Street Improvements -Applicant is required to dedicate attd improve twenty-five feet along the North Property line for a future City Street that will serve the subject property and the property immediately to the North. Half-Street improvements and include curb and gutter, four-feet la~tdscape row, five foot sidewalk and the retnainder to asphalt street section. 4. Public Utili[y Easement - As part of the Final Plat aten-feet wide utility easement shall be placed immediately behind the existing and proposed right-of--way. 5. Landscape and Irrieation Plans and Imnrovements -Prior to issuance of the final plat, the applicant shall submit for approval by the Public Works Director, a landscape plan for all Street frontages. The plan shall include constructiott plans, irrigation plans, details and specifications for the trees to be planted within the right-of--way area. Plantings shall comply with Municipal Code Section 12.36. Tree plantings shall have at least a 1 Yz" bunk diameter at the time of installation. All street trees shall be irrigated with an automatic underground irrigation system. Abandonment of Well(sl: If any property is connected to the City water system the wells currently servicing the property(s) shall be capped an abandoned in accordance with Jackson County Health Department requirements. 7. Jackson County Roads: A full review of the civil improvement plans with an accompanying permit will be required by Jackson County Roads. 140 South Third Street -Central Point, OR 97502 •541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384 r~ :~ R S llksrllVl~IN~ ss ~ia Jackson County Fire District No. 3 ,; 8333 Agate Road Gomm `~ White City OR 97503-1075 ~ ''~ ~<'~~ ,~,.. (541) 826-7100 (voice) (541) 826-4566 (fax) q ~Sw:.,nan•.. ~-•"~'-:ca~»ccaN..r„' ~l ii ! .. Gla."i~ An InternationauyAccredited Fire Department ~~~~~a,.o^° February 22, 2006 City of Central Point Planning Fire District #3 comments: Project # 06059 Cook Minor partition • Do we know what they are planning to build with this project? Mark Moran DFM '.~~23-~~ " ~ ~ O~-~`~r* ZJ ¢ ~ c v~w-f.Pf ~ S ri v a c~a.S(e ~ c~ Y~`(o~fA-~,~ "~ ~ C ( ~e C'?r$~.~-rte v~2h~ r~~-L<s.e~~~~ ®~- (~'~~ ~ a(.,tJay. 6~ , v~ ~- Feb 23 06 10:24a Rogue River Valley Irriga Rogue River Valley Irrigai 3139 Merriman Road Medford. OR 97501 (541) 773-G February 23, 2006 City of Central Point, Oregon 140 So. Third St., Central Point, OR 97502 Planning Department Attn: Planner Re: 06059 (Cook, minor partition) 541-773-5420 p.3 ,~~~r~,~t~nnEtv~' " E on District Fax (541)773-5420 Rogue River Valley Irrigation District understands that an application has been filed with the City of Central Point to allow a minor partition of tax lot 2300, 372W l OBC. The hrigation district assesses this tax lot currently for .50 acres of water rights. The district also has a facility known as our Oakleigh Lateral that traverses through this property. Landowner will be responsible to pay the district $150.00 for a land partition Review. Water right assignment for the new tax lot along with necessary easements will need to be done through this office. No encroachment will be allowed within the districts easement along our Oakleigh Lateral. Please have the landowner contact this office regarding any questions or necessary applications at 3139 Memman Road, Medford, Oregon. Jeff Eicher Manager, RRVID a~ «„ ATTACHMENT F PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Cook Partition. FILE Oh059 CIIECK BOX NUMBER DESCRIPTION OF CONllITION 1 of 2 The applicant shall comply with all federal, state and local regulations, standards and requirements applicahle to the project area. 2 of 2 The applicant shall provide the City Planning Department with correspondence demonstrating compliance with the requirements of the Fire District. \\CPCIISIU'L\2006 LAND USE FILES\06059 COOK TP MINOR\06059COA.DOC Y~. ~. ATTACHMENT " ~. " PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING TENTATIVE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A TWO LOT LAND PARTITION (Applicant (s) :Richard and Andrea Cook) (37 2W I OBC Tax Lot 2300) Recitals 1. Applicant(s) has/have submitted applications for tentative land partition on a 0.98 acre parcel located on property identified by Jackson County as Account 10201425 in the City of Central Point, Oregon. 2. On, March 7, 2006, the Central Point Plamring Commission conducted aduly-noticed public hearing on the application, at which time it reviewed the City staff reports and heard testimony and comments on the application. Now, therefore; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Criteria Applicable to Decision. The following chapters of the Central Point Municipal Code apply to this application: A. Chapter 17.20, R-1, Residential Single Family District B. Chapter 13.36, Flaglots C. Chapter 16.10, Tentative Plans Section 2. Finding and Conclusions. The Planning Commission hereby adopts by reference all findings of fact set forth in the City staff reports, and concludes that, except where addressed in the conditions of approval, the applications and proposal comply with the requirements of the following chapters of the Central Point Municipal Code: A. Chapter 17.20, relating to uses, lot size, lot coverage, setback and building height. B. Chapter 16.36, relating to flaglots. C. Chapter 16.10, relating to required information on plat, processes and the assignment of conditions by the City pertinent to the application. Plamiing Commission Resolution No. (03/07/2005) ~` Section 3. Conditional Ap rp oval. The applications for tentative land partition herein is hereby approved, subject to the conditions set forth on Exhibits "A", "B", and "C" attached hereto by reference incorporated herein, imposed under authority of CPMC Chapter 16.36. Passed by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 7~' day of March, 2006. Plamting Commission Chair ATTEST: City Representative Approved by me this 7a' day of March, 2006. Planning Commission Chair Planning Commission Resolution No. (03/07/2005) .1AI~I'S COURT TREE REMOVAL STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM: Planning Department CENTRAL _ _ _ __ _ Tom Humphrey,AICP, POINT Community Development Director/ Assistant City Administrator STAFF REPORT March 7, 2006 Consideration of a permit for removal of a tree located within the tentatively approved Janscourt Subdivision on Tax Lot 37 2W lOAB, 1400; Shawn McFadden, Applicant. STAFF SOURCE: Ken Gerschler, Community Planner BACKGROUND: The applicant has received a tentative subdivision approval for the eight (8) lot Jans Court Subdivision. Towards the northern periphery of the project, a large Port Orford Cedar tree stands between the common lot lice between lots 1 and 2. The applicant has hired a certified arborist to determine the health and safety of the tree in relation to the homes that would be built near the subject tree. In the opinion of the arborist Exhibit "A"), the tree could present an inherent danger due to its unusual branching pattern. The Planning Commission recognized the tree as a significant asset to the development and had approved the subdivision with the understanding that the tree would be integrated. Since the tree has been recognized as significant by the Planning Commission, a removal would be subject to Chapter 12.36 of the municipal code. The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission allow the tree to be removed based upon safety and has filed the appropriate application. FINDINGS: As set forth in section 12.36.050 a decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a permit for tree removal shall be based on any of the following criteria: A. The tree is unsafe, dead or diseased as determined by a certified arborist. Verification of tree health maybe required, at the expense of the applicant, by a certified arborist acceptable to the city; Finding 12.36.050 (A): The arborist report identifies that the tree is approximately 75 feet in height and has a branch form that is unsafe in areas with residential development. The unsafe nature of the tree is a symptom of its state of health, which is questionable. Conclusion 12.36.050 (A): The arborist is a licensed professional Fvhose analysis rates the tree as healthy, yet unsafe. The fact that the tree has been classified as unsafe can demonstrate that this Finding 12.36.050 (a) can be met. B. The tree is in conflict with public improvements. Finding 12.36.050 (B): The tree is not in conflict with any public improvements. McFaddin Trec Remova106056.doc Page 1 of 2 ~' Conclusion 12.36.050 (B): Not applicable. C. The proposed removal or pruning is part of an approved development project, a public improvement project where no alternative is available, or is part of a street improvement program. Finding 12.36.050 (C): The tree is located near t}te boundary separating Lots 1 and 2 within the tentatively approved Jans Court Subdivision. The Planning Commission was aware of the tree and approved the development with the understanding that the tree would remain. The building footprints could be modified on Lots 1 and 2 to save the tree. Conclusion 12.36.050 (C): This finding cannot be met since there are alternatives available to save the tree. EXHIBITS: Exhibit "A" -Letter from Arborist William Harrington, License PN-0618 ACTION: Consideration of Tree Removal Permit 06056 RECOMMENDATION: Approve Tree Removal Permit 06056, subject to the following condition: 1) Replace the subject tree with three (3) trees with a minimum caliber of 3 inches. The location of the trees shall be approved by the Planning Department and guaranteed through inclusion in the Subdivision hnprovement Agreement. McFaddin Tree Removal 06056.doc Page 2 of 2 ^~ ~~ William `Bill' Harrington Certified Arborist PN-0618 2148 Terrel Drive Medford. Or 97501 541-772-6283 January 8, 2006 Shawn McFadden 91 Church Street Ashland, Or 97520 RE: False Cypress Chamaecyparis lawsoniana Port Orford Cedar Dear Shawn: The following is a report based on our conversation and meeting regarding any impacts, recommendations, and mitigation for the Port Orford Cedaz tree located at your property at 1907 Taylor Road in Central Point which is further described and located at the NW '/a of Sec. 37, TWP. 37-5'R2-W' W.M. Definition of assignment: You informed me at our meeting that you would be developing the property at the aforementioned address and wanted to know how the intended construction would or could impact the Port Orford Tree to help determine the fate of the tree. I was asked to provide you with a report to determine impacts to the subject tree and provide a professional assessment of what should be done. Observations: I observed a 75 feet tall False Cypress /Port Orford Cedaz located in the NE' section of your property. The first thing that struck me was this species of tree should have an excurrent form that is: A major tree form resulting from strong apical control. Trees with this form have a strong central stem and pyramidal shape, LB. most conifer trees. Conversely your tree had a decurrent form: A major tree form resulting from weak apical control Trees with this forth have several to ~~ Shawn McFadden 91 Church Street Ashland, OR 97520 Observations Cont: many lateral branches that compete with the central stem for dominance resulting in a spherical crown. Most hazdwood trees have decunent forms. The subject tree has 4 major scaffold limbs and limb diameters measuring 10.9", 14.8", 21.9" and 25.4" measured at 4.5 feet above the ground. (See Exhibit # 1)This is un-natural for this species and these scaffold limbs aze prone to entire limb failure. The subject tree appears to be in excellent health and vigor however with the future site use changing to a neighborhood /residential use and the presence of the aforementioned malady moves the tree into a category of higher risk due to the propensity of limb failure. It is my opinion that residents assume safety has been taken into consideration and that it is incumbent on developers to provide a reasonably safe environment for their future residents. Conclusion: After cazeful review of all of the facts, site considerafions and the long-term health of the tree it is my opinion that the tree should be removed for the following reasons. • Based on the review of the drawings for the proposed residences the close proximity of the dwellings and the elevation of the buildings tine impacts to the subject tree would be profound and I believe the tree would ultimately become a hazard to the site, buildings and residents of the proposed sub-division after the necessary pruning and excavation were performed in order to construct the residences. • The thresholds and standards and best management practices that should be considered and need to be followed when considering the pruning of trees. See "Best Management Practices Tree Pruning" a companion publication to the ANSI A-300 (American National Standazds Institute) Part L• Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Maintenance. It is generally held that no more than 25% of a trees foliage should ever be removed at any one time, excessive branch removal depletes a trees energy reserves and reduces a trees ability to photosynthesize more energy. Not to mention the loss of its natural form and structure. ~~ Shawn McFadden 91 Church Street Ashland, OR 97520 Mitigation: As we discussed it is always difficult to remove trees especially ones that have been around for a while. Based on my recommendation to remove the cedar tree and as you as you pointed out there are some possibilities for additional landscaping along the "Pedestrian Pathway" it appears there may be room for an additional 4 trees on top of the 12 trees which aze currently planned for that area. The placement of additional frees would further contribute to the site directly and also contribute to the public use of the path. Placement of deciduous trees along the pathway will provide excellent summer shading from the East and allow solar energy to penetrate during winter months. I wish you good luck with your development and am available for any questions or comments you may have regazding your tree and site at (541) 772-6283. Respectfully, William Harrington Certified Arborist /Utility Specialist Pacific Northwest Chapter, I.S.A. International Society of Arboriculture :~ ;~ T~YIN GREEKS GROSSING, PHASE I MODIFICATION FINDINGS: See attached exhibit "E" ISSUES: 1. Approval of the proposed Tentative Plan will supersede the Tentative Plan approved by Resolution No. 654, and is so noted in the new Resolution. 2. The original approved Tentative Plan was primarily to align with the geometry of the Master Plan. There was not proposed development with the original approval, and therefore we did not require CC & R's in connection with the approval. This modification will allow for development, and the applicant will have to submit CC & R's for the City to review prior to final plat approval. Please refer to Exhibit "C" for Conditions of Approval. Exhibits: Exhibit "A" -Original Tentative Plan Exhibit "B" -Proposed Amended Tentative Plan Exhibit "C" -Conditions of Approval Exhibit "D" -Proposed Resolution Exhibit "E" -Findings Exhibit "F" -Building Department Staff Report ACTION: Consideration of Resolution No. _, approving the amendment. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Resolution No. _ e~ ~~ W U Q 3)-zw-x n fm LOT 1 MI%EO ZONING - oPEU svecE _ NIGH wx afsofxnu/couuERnu. - CYPLDVNENL LONNEFGAL Exlsnxc v Iaa,cAnoN L.WE~ ~.y ~\ aP) '~ 'LOT )9• ' I /^\ \\\ M1'L Ji, p gG'H~ LOL ]e fly - Fior n7 c3 \ \5 K,6. S \~ y\ LOT 5 MI%EO ZONING ld•75{ 3151E \ ~\ ~ ,[ -OPEN SPACE 1bT 551 LOT 2 \\ ~ ~0 h ~ - XILN 41% RESIOFNTAL/LOMNFRGAL o Fpf Si 63R A[na. \\ - C\ Y. ~ ~ D' - EMPLDtMfNT C04NFRLIAI ~ibfl3~ i]DSNix3c 8~M8 \ " 4 b iETii \ u; ri0i ~~ I ~ )240 , ~ 5\ /,QT `` ~\ ~ 6.) L__.{ ' Oi )O 6 ~ Sz6 A[n I FLOT ss I n-2w-3w n loo xl.n ,e~"' laesz scan. 1R~ LOTS ° r__.~ / ~~ \ zox;NC 9s ~Sa s.z9 A[n.. " -LOi 68J 29.20 .( ~ \ /\ zN1580 Se.H. r^ - 4 10' PuC ~ ' ~~-'~ ~$ - iWlx GREEKS LAGSSifG_ 2000 \\ 90' [~~~ ~ \ i[V H•tD I LOi a01 I I ` SJ-2W-]C R 2P3 \ 'CM~ti ~ ~ o' I LBT 391 I ~', \~, N.9s 'eo? g ~ LOT 4 ~'b \4'~ '+~ i; r- ~ I c5'~ gs \ ~ ~ \\ IZWYNG B48 e ~ ~ LOT 6 ZONING `LOi S] I i yep ~~QPf \,~+ 2000 \\\ ~' \ W ; i - NEDIUY NI% RESIOENTAL WAN£ OIf IVE -~ 1 O!+ Y~ P ~A\ 1--,~~~--I I ~i IYf \\ B° V,~C O\ Y \\ ~~ v 7 I I I d Iw, R \ .s Ls~ \A \~~\\ I ~c I o I I >' I~~ n 3)-2w-x iL zo3 \ T 3> ~;~ [ i 'QO _ __ f_IRRIGAndi EASEYENi IN5T,N0.__5-14/2'3_L D_ .(~ Y-r I PdtnONS OF Tils EASEYFNL-/ I~ )-2W-xD R / O \\ OA~~ `[O'Y~S 0; \ J" n 4.itDA a[. I o ~ ~ ~ ARV'` DEEM Wli CWUEO I-+I 13.43 4 O\ \J \ \ Qom`\\ \q 91903 Se.ft 2 LL RENAIMINL PQinLV15 I~, C O\ ~\~7 B \ O\'n L' J f APE PENgxG Wli CUIY CT / i\ \ ~~` ~ v 1 \~ WE Y014 G :ucoAt oR~ L____ _ '_______ I _ ~>`?\~~ ~i:n \ ; oAU ~, I ~~ ~~ PARK AREA ~ ~ `\ !1 \ \ g vEUmxc c,Rlmx onxs uwT xo. 3 \%a ~\ o~y~~a I° ~ \ ~ GRIFFIN OANS DHIi Na. 2. PRASE 1 iY, -1 w 3' ,~ ` ~, INSi.NO 02-62x8 "~' INSi.NO )D-99935 INSi NO. )0-09901 IAC~TM LREEN x ~PRCPDSED LREFI( RELOCATION TENTATIVE PLAN Df TWIN CREEKS CROSSING, PHASE I located in tha SOUTHWEST & SOUTHEAST ONE QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 37 SOUTH, RANGE 2 WEST, CITY OF CENTRAL POINT WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGOn for TWIN CREEKS DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC P.0. BO% 35A CENTRAL POINT, OREGON 9]502 NOTES: -TOTAL AREA 33.49 ACREA - SMALLEST LOT 3.26 ACRES -AVERAGE LOT 4.82 ACRES - NUMBER OF LOTS - 6 $ BRASS CAP IN CONCRETE CURB BENCH MARK ELEVATION 1253.25 GT ..,«.-.V.~ a TA% LOT LINES - THE LARGE LOTS BEING CREATED ARE E%PECTED TO BE , REPLAliEO AS FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS PLANS ARE SUBMITTED. Y 'a ~°„ ~ e Y TAxm V]CINI7Y MAP (NO SCALE) neals]'eRm PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR ~~-~ ~-- .LGr~i9N¢5 1°g]QZ3ee'~" Sheet 1 of i w55C33Pe5 uM Fl(£ x0. 3] 2w OSCB ]L ]00, S> Iw OSC iL100, 20J. IOa, J> 2W SOC JJ00, A IW SCD IIa NF1 DFLiA AIG R!.W$ BEAfiN3 D5iA1GE GS NMRf _ ]P60' ]Y1W HiSRR'2l'E ]].Y/ R 33'1)'M' 3659' R.19W NC3'4'RS'U 14129' c3 sOS']3'Sr 3)a9z ieom WfSS'av Szoca u srsam zn.m• Sszar xx66sv z.a4r CS 35'S5'SY 1623' R.U.DY W'SYDYM 368Y C6 9Tttt11' 2)623' 162ar $SY35'6T 24W C> NSB'2T 1632f 90.ar MYRR'YSY 160.]6' CB 93'0605' 2499Y 160.ar 1LTN1M'E 2JR3Y ' ry 35RYSr IM9)' 1)PO]' SRV3l'3l4 10331 RFNCWAL DATE 12-31-OS Surveyed by FARBER & SONS, INC. dba FARBER SURVEYING (541) 664-5599 PO BOX 5286 aJl OAK STREET CENTRAL POINT, OREGON 92502 scaLE: Y - 2DD' TOO' ]CO' 0' 200' a00' OA1E: APFIL 11, 1003 JOB NO.: 0349-96 THIRD e ~, ~ eic, tmmc W[G~r~ \\~ 9~ /~ l' I ~~/ ~- 3 1 11AYO: o I!~a*'f F¢me z 11L-- ~~ u-,___, d I~oT~' n-zF-xe nlm _. ral Fr~l~' Tot ~i 2~ ~. J s* 5e .~.~ ~,I_ - I °° o ,~rT o, ~5 n-zF-x n tao ' ~ f ~ ,p LOT ~ T~ £ wi 3V $ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~, Lar v \ ~ ,r„ . ~ ~~..¢f ... Lor r . ~ Lor LoT a NOTES. "` TENTATIVE PLAN '~; of TWIN CREEKS CROSSING, PHASE 1 ! io<.t.a rn fns nn ` LJ~Q ! 3 SOVTHWAST & SOUTHEAST ONE OVARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 37 SOUTH, vn2x RANGE 2 WESL CITY OF CENTRAL POINT .C WILLAMETTE MERIDfAN, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON e~ for NpMTY lIM cNO scAw ~ TNN crrEacs ne~a=raeTVr ca, uc P.O. BOX 53T/ _ GENlRAL PdNi CftEOIX~ B]30Y x LOTS ro Fatwu Ta-,.ar m amm~ aw _~aom lcnoet ~~Pl."IV~ Of' NA Lw~E~ ~ I~ a ~- I _ rf1~ AwclrAx FAmurt ~ ~ ~ ~ \~~ ~ Iii ~~ ~, ~ 1A~J0% `~ `~ a b° ~- I ~x n-zw.ac n n-xFSm n a<< r GRIFi'IN OAKS UNIT No. 3 ,~\\6' IM1z GRI~fIN O/.KS UVIi rvo. 2. P,:ASF 1 Faits O1iTW '~ ~~ -TOTAL MEA 3148 AQrE ~1t - sMALtsr Lor B.w AaEs - AVEFACE LOT O.TS ARES - NlY1B£R a wTS - x }BRASS CM N WII(REIE WPB @l1CN MARK EIEYAIICN 1]SJ.YS Fi _ _ .TAX LOT LINES r~i ~ Z FOOT CCNTWR tNE LARGE wn earvc cRFA.rcB ARE EmECiFD ro eE "" RFVUrnn As wart GE":LwNEnr Fw+s ARE wBVlrrm. w~ 5haof 1 of f uw nic Na n zw axn n rm n zw we nroa xu mA n zw xc xoo, n zw x» rz AMENDED PLAN v L,1-. ~~ _ \ / '4r bib d Lm 1 ~ / / yb 6 08 6~b~,PO e T' ~ g eJ ~ 9 ~~]f8 O '.'t P~q ~ ~ / lN~ MAO ~ // `~ ~~ ~~ .F ~ S°F ~br~ v / / pROrr~oxAr, ~/ bye ~O w / J->.~-y~~ ~ / ~6r e e / / ~ m~~~ b$e s , / ~~ i Q~ e~ ,~ 6,.ea / /~ r mw m..o 6 ~~~ ~ / / / sv~wrvd er. / FARBER & SONS INC. >p~jln I9 Cv I& $ ~~? ~ / dbO FARBER SURI~EYING / Ig Ike l"~$J ~ / / (541) 664-5599 / PO BOX 3286 ' I _N( ~ / UI OAK STREET 1 ~A}V-W ~_ ~ / CENTRAL PgNT, Q4EGCN 9]502 \ ~~~ ~._. «a ~~,e~°J irm +wa mos. uwMr m. zcm f ...N....m.~~ ::~ «~ n Exhibit "C" Conditions of Approval Modification to Twin Creeks Crossing, Ph. I Condition No. Descri tion 1 of 2 Approval of the modified Tentative Plan will supersede the Tentative Plana roved b Resolution No. 654. 2 of 2 Applicant must submit CC & R's for review prior to Final Plata royal. F i i ATTACHMENT ".~__" PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING TENTATIVE PLAN APPROVAL FORA "SUBDIVISION KNOWN AS TWIN CREEKS CROSSING, PH I", THIS RESOLUTION SUPERSEDES RESOLUTION N0. 654, APPROVED JUNE 7, 2006. (Applicant (s) :Twin Creeks Development Co., LLC) (37 2W 03C, Tax Lot(s) 100,203 & 204 ) (37 2W 03CB, Tax Lot 100) (37 2W 03CD, Tax Lot 124) (37 2W 3DC, Tax Lot 3300} Recitals 1. Applicant(s) has/have submitted an application for tentative plan approval for a subdivision known as Twin Creek Crossing, Phase I on 33.49 acres located north of Taylor Road, east of Grant Road and west of Highway 99, in the City of Central Point, Oregon. 2. On, March 7, 2006, the Central Point Planning Commission conducted aduly-noticed public meeting on the application, at which time it reviewed the City staff reports and heard testimony and comments on the application. Now, therefore; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Approval Criteria. The requirements for approval of land partitions and tentative plans are set forth in CPMC Title 16 and 17, relating to informational requirements, zoning, lot dimension, access, and similar requirements. Section 2. Finding and Conclusions. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. Tentative Plan Requirements. The application and tentative plan are in the correct form and contain all of the information required by CPMC 16.10. And that this phase is substantially compliant with the Twin Creeks Master Plan B. Area and Width of Lot. This subdivision in an TOD- HMR-High Mix Residential; TOD-EC, Employment Commercial; TOD-OS, Open Space; and TOD-MMR, Medium Mix Residential would create 1 lot consisting of approximately 4.41 acres zoned Medium Mix Residential; 3 lots consisting of approximately 4.49 acres zoned Open Space; 21ots consisting of approximately 3.83 acres zoned Employment Commercial, 7 lots consisting of approximately 13.64 acres zoned High Mix Residential, and 23 lots consisting of approximately .97 acres zoned High Mix Residential: -; ~~ <~, >~ Twenty Three (23) lots meet the minimum area and width requirements for lots in the HMR- High Mix Residential zone as set forth in CPMC 17.65, and such parcels meet the general requirements for lots contained in CPMC 16.24.050. The other lots created can be further divided with the exception of the lots designated as Open Space, as development plans are submitted and aze subject to Planning Commission approval Section 3. Conditional Approval. The application for tentative plan is hereby approved, subject to the conditions set forth on Exhibits "A", "B","C", "D","E", and "F" attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein, imposed under authority of CPMC Chapter 16.36. Passed by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this _7thday of -March-, 2006. Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: City Representative Approved by me this 7th day of _March~ 2006. Planning Commission Chair BUILDING DEPARTMENT DATE: 2/02/06 CENTRAL POINT ATTACHMENT " I- '~ Lois DeBenedetti, Building Official BUILDING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Department Planning file: 05050 FROM: Building Department SUBJECT: Twin Creeks Crossing Name: Twin Creeks Dev.Co. LLC Address: P.O. Box 3577 City: Central Point State: Or. Zip code: 97502 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Southwest and Southeast one quarter of Section 3, Township 37 South, Range 2 West, City of Central Point, Or. (Phase 1) PURPOSE The staff report is to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Applicant regarding City Building Department requirements and conditions to be included in the design and development of the proposed project. This is not a plan review. This report is preliminary and compiled solely for use by the Central Point Planning Commission. 1 a c~ BUILDING DEPARTMENT CENTRAL _ POINT BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: Lois DeBenedetti, Building Official 1. Applicant, agent and contractors must comply with all current State of Oregon adopted codes, and apply for all permits through the Central Point Building Department. 2. If a private storm drain system is proposed it must be reviewed and a permit issued by the Central Point Plumbing department. 3. Any private street lighting must be reviewed and permitted by the Central Point Electrical Department. 4. Provide the building department with a Geotechnical report as required by OSSC Appendix J and chapter 18 of the OSSC. A written report of the investigation shall include, but need not be limited to, the following information: a. A plot plan showing the location of all test borings and/or excavations. b. Descriptions and classifications of the materials encountered. c. Elevations of the water table, if encountered. d. Recommendations for foundation type and design criteria, including bearing capacity, provisions to mitigate the effects of expansive soils, provisions to mitigate the effects. of liquefaction and soil strength, and the effects of adjacent loads. e. When expansive soils are present, special provisions shall be provided in the foundation design and construction to safeguard against damage due to expansiveness. Said design shall be based on geotechnical recommendations. 5. Grading/ excavation permits are required in accordance with OSSC Appendix J and chapter 18 and regarding any fill material placed on the site. Fills to be used to support the foundation of any building or structure shall be placed in accordance with accepted engineering practices. 2 a ~, BUILDING DEPARTMENT CENTRAL POINT Lois DeBenedetti, Building OfFcial A soil investigation report and a report of satisfactory placement of fill (including special inspections of placement of fill and compaction) acceptable to the Building Official shall be submitted prior to final of the grading/excavation permit. Building permits will not be issued until grading/excavation permit is finalled. Exception: 1. The upper 1. 5 foot of fill placed outside of public rights-of- way. 2. The upper 1.5 foot of fill that does not underlie buildings, structures, or vehicular access ways or parking areas. 6. To move or demolish any existing structures located on the property call the Building Department for permit requirements. 7. Notify the City Building Department of any existing wells, or septic systems located on the property. 8. Any development (any man-made change) to improved or unimproved real estate located within the flood hazard area of the City of Central Point shall require a Development Permit as set forth in the Central Point Municipal Code 8.24.120. 9. Dust control, and track out elimination procedures must be implemented. 10.Application for building permit will require four sets of complete plans indicating compliance with 2005 Oregon Residential Specialty Code. 11. Fire District 3 will determine fire hydrant location, as well as access to buildings. The International Fire Code (2003) with Oregon Amendments (2004) will be implemented as part of the plan check code requirement for these proposed buildings. 13 BUILDING DEPARTMENT CENTRAL POINT Lois DeBenedetti, Building Official Any changes proposed shall be submitted in writing by the Applicant, or Applicant's contractor to the Building Department for approval prior to start of work. 4 -4- :~ MILLER ESTATES AMENDMENT PHASES I & II Planning Department STAFF REPORT Tom Humphrey, AICP, Community Development Director/ Assistant City Administrator STAFF REPORT March 7, 2006 AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of an amendment to Miller Estates Phases I and II, a Planned Unit Development (37 2W 03BA, TL 9000) to allow rear patio covers /awnings to be constructed up 3' of the rear property line; Marian Miller Irrevocable Trust, applicant . STAFF SOURCE: Lisa Morgan, Planning Technician BACKGROUND: Miller Estates, Phases I & II were previously approved and is almost complete. A resident of Miller Estates wanted to apply for a zoning variance to reduce the present required minimum rear yard setbacks for the R-3, Residential Multiple Family zoning district of 10 feet. The criteria to approve a zoning variance could not be met. In reviewing this request it became appazent that numerous patio covers and awnings have been constructed in violation of required reaz yazd setbacks. At the December meeting of the Planning Commission the variance issue was presented and discussed. The Planning Commission directed staff to evaluate the situation and prepare a reasonable legal solution that would have the least possible adverse impact to the residents. The solution proposed is to amend the Planned Unit Development. Because Miller Estates is a Planned Unit Development, the City has flexibility to reduce the required setback for the reaz patio covers and/or awnings. Justification for the reduced setbacks is based on: 1. The PUD process allows the Planning Commission the flexibility to reduce setbacks (Section 17.68.010); and 2. The minimum State standards for setbacks for awnings and/or patio covers outside of a manufactured housing pazk is zero (0) feet located on the same lot. Amendments to the PUD must be initiated by the legal owners of Miller Estates. The Agent for the owners of Millers Estates consented to an amendment solely for the purpose of correcting the patio cover awning setback situation. On February 21, a meeting with interested residents was held to answer any questions. On February 24"', a letter was mailed to the residents to inform them that this amendment would be heard at the March 7, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. ~: ~ The focus of this amendment is limited solely to allowing patio covers and/or awnings to be constructed up to 3 feet from the rear property line. This amendment request will not apply to any other structures. FINDINGS: See attached exhibit "F" ISSUES: 1. Legal Precedent. The three (3) foot rear yard set back is not arbitrary. The State has established a minimum zero (0) foot standazd fire separation setbacks outside of a manufactured housing park for awnings and/or patio covers located on the same lot. 2. Limits of PUD Amendment. The applicant has agreed to amending the PUD provided that consideration be limited strictly to modification of the rear yard setback. Exhibits: Exhibit "A" -General Description of PUD Amendment Exhibit "B" -Copy of letter to Mr. Bennett (Agent) authorizing amendment to the PUD Exhibit "C" - Copy of letter to residents of Miller Estates Exhibit "D" -Conditions of Approval Exhibit "E" -Proposed Resolution Exhibit "F" -Findings ACTION: Consideration of Resolution No. _, approving the amendment RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Resolution No. _ ,Q, Exhibit "A" Request for Amendment to an Already Approved PUD Miller Estates Phases I & II Applicant: Marian Miller Irrevocable Trust 950 N. Phoenix Road C2-316 Medford, Oregon 97504 Agent: flcyerr{-' Curt Bennett (`fr-t~stee for Marian Miller Irrevocable Trust 3670 Fieldbrook Medford, Oregon 97504 General Description of PUD Amendment: The focus of this amendment is limited to allowing patio covers and/ or rear awnings to be constructed up to 3 feet from the rear property line . This amendment request will not apply to any other structures. Signed%/ Curt Bennett, Agent Z- z.3 ~ o~ h ~d ATTACHMENT " ~ '~ Clty of Central Point, Oregon 140 Bo.Third 8t., Central Point, Or 97502 541.664.3327 Fax 541.664.6384 www.c i.cen tra I-po i nt.o r. u s __ CENTRAL POINT Planning Department _._ _-- __ Tom Humphrey, AICP, Community Development Ditectod Assistant City Administrator February 15, 2006 Marian Miller Irrevocable Trust Attn: Curt Bennett 950 North Phoenix, Road C2-316 Medford, Oregon 97504 RE: Planned Unit Development Amendment -Miller Estates, Phase I & II Dear Mr. Bennett, This letter is a follow up to our conversation earlier today regarding the above. I have summarized the highlights of our meeting below: • The typical filing fees associated with the amendment application have been waived. • This application will be brought to the Planning Commission at a regularly scheduled meeting for final approval. The purpose and focus of this amendment is limited to allowing patio covers and/ or rear awnings to be constructed with a minimum set back of three feet to the rear property line, and therefore would not apply to any other struchxre. This amendment, if approved, will not supersede the State of Oregon s minimum fire separation requirements. However, if the State of Oregon requirement is less restrictive than the proposed 3' rear property line setback, the governing municipality approval (City of Central Point) shall be the minimum setback used. • The proposed setback modification, if approved would only apply to the rear patio covers and/or awnings for manufactured homes. Homeowners within Miller Estates will still be required to obtain the necessary building permits for existing and future patio covers and/ or rear awnings. ~3 Note: In some cases, homeowners who have patio covers /rear awnings which are less than 120 square feet and specifically exempted from the State of Oregon Manufactured Dwelling code may not have to obtain a building permit. It is the responsibility of the homeowner to check with the Building Department to see if their awning is exempt. Setbacks shall be measured from rear property lines as recorded in Volume 27 of Plats, Page 4 and Volume 29 of Plats, Page 3 of records of Jackson County. For the purpose of expediting this process, I have attached a letter of request to initiate the PUD amendment and setting forth the purpose of the amendment. This letter when signed by you will accompany the application. If you have any questions, or disagree with the above summary of our meeting please feel free to contact me. cerely, ~\ Lisa Morga~ ~ i~ ~'~ Planning Technician City of Central Point -Planning Department P.S. Thank you for your efforts in working towards a solution that hopefully everyone can benefit from. ~.. ,. ATTACHMENT" L " City of Central Point, Oregon 140 So.Third St., Central Point, or 97502 541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384 www.ci.central-point.or.us CENTRAL POINT Planning Department Tom Humphrey, AICP, Community Development Director/ Assistant City Administrator February 23, 2006 To: Residents of Miller Estate From: City of Central Point Planning Department RE: Amendment to Miller Estates, a Planned Unit Development Dear Residents, This letter is to inform you that on March 7, 2006 at their regularly scheduled meeting the Planning Commission will be reviewing an application to amend the Miller Estates Planned Unit Development. The Planning Commission meeting starts at approximately 7:00 p.m. There are other items on the agenda to be heard prior to this application. Please be advised that the ONLY purpose of this amendment is to reduce the rear yard setback for rear patio covers and/ or awning to 3' from the rear property line as platted and recorded with Jackson County. A: It will offer more flexibility to install a patio cover or awning, by reducing the current setback of 10' down to 3' from the rear property line, since many of you only have about 10-15' rear yards. If you hire a contractor to install one for you, be sure that your contractor gets a building permit. If you are a do-it-yourselfer, be sure to check with the building department about getting a building permit. Q; Ntliat-does #Ius mean fd you if.~o~ already have an awning? - ' A: It will aid in bringing existing patio covers and awnings into compliance with City Codes or conditions of approval. e. ~ ~f i u ___ ~ ~,_._ _ __ _ __ A, ~_, ~ __- ~.. A: Yes, as a homeowner it is your responsibility to check with the Building Department to acquire a building permit, or to make sure your contractor did. Until the Planning Commission reviews the application and approves the proposed amendment, the existing rear yard setback of 10' for rear patio covers or awnings will be in effect. If approved, it will be reduced to 3' for rear patio covers or awnings ONLY. We hope that this letter will answer some of the more obvious questions that you may have. However, if you are in doubt at aII or have any questions what so ever, please feel free to contact us at 664-3321 ext 292 for Planning or 664-3321 ext 250 & 252 for the Building Department. (i` Sin erely, ~/ `~~ Lisa Morgan Planning Department ATTACHMENT " ~ City of Central Point, Oregon 140 So.Third St, Central Point, Or 97502 541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384 www.c i.cent ra I-po i nt.or, u s Planning Department Tom Humphrey, AICP, Community Development Director/ Assistant City Administrator Conditions of Approval Amendment to Miller Estates, A Planned Unit Development File No. 06062 Condition Number Descri Lion of Condition 1 of 4 The purpose of this amendment is limited to allowing patio covers and/ or rear awning to be constructed up to 3 feet from the rear property line, and would not apply to an other structure. 2 of 4 The amendment shall not supersede the State of Oregon s minimum fire separation requirements. If the State of Oregon requirement is less restrictive than the proposed 3' rear property line setback for patio covers and/or awnings, the governing municipality (City of Central Point shall be the minimum setback used. 3 of 4 Homeowners within Miller Estates will be required to obtain the necessary building permits for existing and future atio covers and/or rear awnin s. 4 of 4 Setbacks shall be measured from the rear property lines as recorded in Volume 27 of Plats, page 4 and Volume 29 of Plats, Pa e 3 of records of Jackson Coun ita '~ a ~ e~ ATTACHMENT" ~ " PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL FOR AN AMENDMENT TO MILLER ESTATES, PHASES I & II, a PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW PATIO COVERS AND/OR REAR AWNINGS CONSTRUCTED UP TO 3' FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 27 OF PLATS, PAGE 4 AND VOLUME 29 OF PLASTS, PAGE OF RECORDS OF JACKSON COUNTY. (Applicant: Marian Miller Irrevocable Trust (37 2W 03BA, Tax Lot 9000) Recitals 1, Applicant has submitted application to amend a Planned Unit Development known as Miller Estates, Phase I & II, Located south of Scenic Avenue, east of US Highway 99 in the City of Central Point, Oregon. 2. On, Mazch 7, 2006, the Central Point Planning Commission conducted aduly-noticed public meeting on the application, at which time it reviewed the City staff reports and heazd testimony and comments on the application. Now, therefore; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Criteria Applicable to Decision. The following chapters of the Central Point Municipal Code apply to this application: A. Chapter 17.68, Planned Unit Developments Section 2. Finding and Conclusions. The Planning Commission hereby adopts by reference aIi findings of fact set forth in the City staff reports, and concludes that, except where addressed in the conditions of approval, the applications and proposal comply with the requirements of the following chapters of the Central Point Municipal Code: A. Chapter 17.68.010, relating to purpose of Planned Unit Developments B. Chapter 17.68.070 (c), relating to final development plans C. Chaptex 17.68.080, relating to exceptions within PUD Planning Commission Resolution No. _ (03/7/2006) D. Chapter 17.68.090 (e), relating to uses designed to primazily serve only the residents of a PUD. Section 3. Conditional Approval. The application for an amendment to a Planned Unit Development is hereby approved, subject to the conditions set forth on Exhibits "A", "B" "C", "D", "E" and "F" attached hereto by reference incorporated herein, imposed under authority of the Central Point Municipal Code. Passed by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 7th day of March, 2006. Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: City Representative Approved by me this 7th day of March, 2006. Planning Commission Chair Planning Commission Resolution No. _ (03/7/2006) ~=a :a EXHIBIT "F" - Findings Amendment to Miller Estates, Phases I & II A Planned Unit Development File No. 06062 Code Section Descri lion 17.68.010 The purpose of a planned unit development (PUD) is to gain more effective use of open space, realize advantages of large-scale site planning, mixing of building types or land uses, improved aesthetics and environmental preservation by allowing a variety of buildings, structures, open spaces, allowable heights and setbacks of buildings and structures. Findings: Rear patio covers and/or awnings meet the definition of a structure, there is flexibility with setbacks of structures under the purpose of a Planned Unit Development. Conclusion: The proposed amendment meets the purpose of a Planned Unit Develo ment. 17.68.070 (c) After the certificate of completion has been issued, no change of the approved final development shall be made without an amendment to the plan. Findings: An amendment to an approved fmal development plan can be made by application. Conclusion: The applicant has met this requirement by submitting an application to amend the Planned Unit Develo ment for consideration. 17.68.080 (d) Amendments to a completed planned unit development maybe approved, if appropriate due to changes in conditions since the final development plan was approved or because there have been changes in the development...... Findings: There have been changes made within the development since the final development plan approval. Conclusion: The re uest of this amendment meets the requirement of this section. 17.68.080 The Planning Commission may allow exceptions within a PUD for dimensions, site coverage, yard spaces, structure heights, distances between structures, street widths or off-street parking and loading facilities differing from specific standards for the zoning district in which the PUD is located. Findings: The Planning Commission at their discretion may allow exceptions for setbacks for structures. Conclusion: The residents have limited rear yazd space. The applicant has followed and met the procedure to amend the Planned Unit Development, asking for a reduced rear yard setback for reaz atio covers and/or awnings. 17.68.090 (e) In addition to the accessory uses typical of the primary uses authorized, accessory uses approved as part of a PUD may include the following uses: Other accessory structures which the Planning Commission finds are designed to serve primarily the residents of the PUD and aze compatible with the design of the PUD. Findings: Rear patio covers and/or awnings are typical accessory uses of manufactured homes, though this is a platted subdivision rather than a mobile home Section 17.68.090 (e) continued: pazk. The rear patio cover and /or awnings are designed to serve only the residents of Miller Estates. Conclusion: This request to amend the PUD would only serve the residents of Miller Estates and therefore meets this requirement. .°~ .t MISCELLANEOUS STAFF REPORT STAFF REPORT March 7, 2006 AGENDA ITEM: Planning Department _ ._ Tom Humphrey,AICP, Community Development Director/ Assistant City Adminlstaror Platming Commission review of Site Plan for a townhome development in the Residential Multiple Family (R-3) Zoning Dish7et on property identified as Tax Lot 37 2W 02CD, 1600; Skillman Brothers INC, Applicant. STAFF SOURCE: Ken Gerschler, Community Planner BACKGROUND: On February 7, 2006, the applicant received approval to subdivide an existing 0.25 acre parcel into four (4) "pad lots". At this time, the applicant is requesting site plan approval for the four (4) dwelling units. FINDINGS: The applicant's site plan application is compliant with the applicable requirements shown in the following table: Code Section Descri tion Com liance 17.28.210 Structures on padlots must be rnulti-dwelling unit attached buildings that Yes meet building code re uirements. 17.28.040 Maximum structure height of 35 feet. Yes 17.28.050 Front setback of 20 feet. Rear setback of 10 feet. Except where common Yes lot line (zero lot line) abuts the attached "padlot" dwelling, the minimum side yard setback is 5 feet er story. 17.64.040(a) Two covered off-street arkin s aces are re uired. Yes 17.60.110 Clear vision clearance area required at all intersections. Distance Yes determined by Public Works De artment. 17.72.040(a Landsca ing and Fencing Yes 16.26.030 Provides for the assigmnent of conditions of approval. As a supplement Yes to the findings staff has included by reference, as a condition of approval agency correspondence Exhibits "C", "D" and "E". ISSUES: In considering an approval of this site plan approval application, the Planning Department identifies that there are several items worthy of consideration: 1. Members of the Commission expressed concern about the addition of four driveways onto Oak Street and this issue has been addressed in the Public Works Staff Report. (lakvlP.n Tn~unhrniies SPR ~(()4RSPR.dne Paae 1 of 2 2. Jackson County Fire District Three did not provide comments but the applicant will need to meet any conditions of the agency and provide the City with written verification prior to building plan release. EXHIBITS: Exhibit "A" -Site Plan and Elevations Exhibit "B" -Public Works Department Staff Report Exhibit "C" -Building Department Staff Report Exhibit "D" - RVSS Comments Exhibit "E" - Plaiming Department Recommended Conditions Exhibit "F" -Proposed Resolution ACTION: Consideration of Resolution No. , approving the site plan subject to the Staff report requirements and conditions. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Resolution No. _ Oakglen Townhornes SPR 06048SPR.doc Page 2 of 2 I 13'1.5' ~------_""--~ ~~)) , I (~" ~ i4' ~; ~ r ~ ~*tu'XpD nr. ~ 34,1« ~ ® d. TOUJ~ ~~w ~ sn 111 . 1_...--t5 . ~ 1 1 Z ~ ~ , ~ _ ~ --~-. , ~ ~'~ fib, ~; ~ a , ° rw )~ a, , ~ , ~~ °plvE ~ ® L caw.7 r r`:i p.~W YD1Liy E UNI15: ~ I~ ~f ~ ~ ~~ y J ~NTf~- F'pIN1, ~' 1 ~ ~ - / / p{iOJEGt 4WN~R+ ~•l94 (i^~))) / n~ s' ~- ~ .. a 2~ a~~is..¢~~~~~ m~a`'~' ° ° °~~ we u~ rws. ro~,roi~ ~~' NORYHI jidyu"'_~ 0.tld0 . 31 WRa/OG nx~a.!'°~3°w~+o°~`M e aL~pyp.pfiEG ~, PAS 3. , ~~~ ~ Jv Tx°"'rnu' LOTOOTIM~jTGT'EI~'L`• S, ~~ R0P6 R4 ~ 5~ =gGB A~ ~~° tty ~,, PR,YAffi GAF3f'E 13 F£~~ 20A' H a~ ,.. .A:~--a ~~~.' CFGY ~1~hD'JA7'CJ~R1 E,y PWVF.TE GARbG~' Jan 24 06 01:36p Horton Rrchitects 030-1014 p.3 ATTACHMENT "_" Public Works Department CENTR POIN c, ~~r~, Bob Pierce, Director Matt Samitore, Development Services Public Works Department MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: MATT SAMITORE SUBJECT: SKILI_MANDRIVEWAYACCESSFOROAK/FREEMAN DEVELOPMENT DATE: FEBRUARY 24, 2006 Planning Department: The Public Works Department has reviewed the site plan with the driveway locations for the Skillman - Oak/Freeman Townhouse project and has the following requirements. For the driveway closest to the intersection of Oak/Freeman a 90 degree turn-around will be required within the landscaping area. This will ensure that vehicular movements will be head-out instead of a typical back up movements on to Oak Street. Additionally, the drieway spacing between the first two driveways is insufficient. There must be fifteen feet seperation between them. The Public Works Department will require that the driveways be shortened and the landscape island widened. The other proposed driveway locations are in compliance with the Public Works Standard and Specifications. The current distance of the yellow curb that was installed along the parent property as part of the Albertsous/Mt. View Plaza was in accordance with our old Standards and Specifications. The proposed layout of the driveway locations will not allow for any on-street parking in front of the subject townhouses. The corner ofFreeman/Oak will remain yellow curbed. The Public Works Department has also reviewed the landscape and irrigation drawings and find them in accorandance with the City standards. 140 South Third Street ~~ Central Point, OR 97502 .541.664.3321 -Fax 541.664.6384 BUfLDfNG DEPARTMENT CENTRAL POINT Lois DeBenedetti, Building Official AT1"AGHMENT " ~ '~ BUILDING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT DATE: 2102106 TO: Planning Department Planning file:06048 PROM: Building Department SUBJECT: Oakglenn Padlot Name: Skillman Brothers Address: 3650 Biddle Rd. City: Medford State: Or. Zip code: 97504 PROPERTY DESCRfPTION:37-2W-02CD T.L. 1600 PURPOSE The staff report is to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Applicant regarding City Building Department requirements and conditions to be included in the design and development of the proposed project. This is not a plan review. This report is preliminary and compiled solely for use by the Central Point Planning Commission. -1- BUILDING DEPARTMENT CENTRAL POINT BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: Lois DeBenedetti, Building Official 1. Applicant, agent and contractors must comply with all current State of Oregon adopted codes, and apply for ail permits through the Central Point Building Department. 2. If a private storm drain system is proposed it must be reviewed and a permit issued by the Central Point Plumbing department. 3. Any private street lighting must be reviewed and permitted by the Central Point Electrical Department. 4. Provide the building department with a Geotechnical report as required by OSSC Appendix J and chapter 18 of the OSSC. A written report of the investigation shall include, but need not be limited to, the fallowing information: a. A plot plan showing the location of all test borings and/or excavations. b. Descriptions and classifications of the materials encountered. c. Elevations of the water table, if encountered. d. Recommendations for foundation type and design criteria, including bearing capacity, provisions to mitigate the effects of expansive soils, provisions to mitigate the effects of liquefaction and soil strength, and the effects of adjacent loads. e. When expansive soils are present, special provisions shall be provided in the foundation design and construction to safeguard against damage due to expansiveness. Said design shall be based on geotechnical recommendations. 5. Grading/ excavation permits are required in accordance with OSSC Appendix J and chapter 18 and regarding any fill material placed on the site. Fills to be used to support the foundation of any building or structure shall be placed in accordance with accepted engineering practices. -2- BU(LD(NG DEPARTMENT CENTRAL POINT Lois DeBenedetti, 8uitding Official A soil investigation report and a report of satisfactory placement of fill (including special inspections of placement of fill and compaction) acceptable to the Building Official shaft be submitted prior to final of the grading/excavation permit. Building permits will not be issued anti{ grading/excavation permit is finalled. Exception: 1. The upper 1. 5 foot of fill placed outside of public rights-of- way. 2. The upper 1.5 foot of fil{ that does not underlie buildings, structures, or vehicular access ways or parking areas. 6. To move or demolish any existing structures located on the property ca11 the Building Department for permit requirements. 7. Notify the City Building Department of any existing wells, or septic systems located on the property. 8. Any development (any man-made change) to improved or unimproved real estate located within the flood hazard area of the City of Central Point shaft require a Development Permit as set forth in the Central Point Municipal Code 8.24.120. 9. Dust control, and track out elim(nation procedures must be implemented. 10.Application for building permit will require four sets of complete plans indicating compliance with 2005 Oregon Residential Specialty Code. 11. Fire District 3 will determine fire hydrant location, as well as access to buildings. The lntemational Fire Code (2003) with Oregon Amendments (2004) will be implemented as part of the plan check code requirement for these proposed buildings. -3- Any changes proposed shall be submitted in writing by the Applicant, or Applicant's contractor to the Building Department for approval prior to start of work. ATTACHMENT " ~ " ~~~y~Y 5E1y~~~ n ~~ ROGUE VALLEY SEWER SERVICES Location: 138 Wcst Vitas Road, Central Point, OR-Mailing Address: P.O. Box 3130, Central Point, OR 7502-0005 Tet. (541) 664-6300, Far, (541)664-7171 vrxw.RVSS.us January 5, 2006 Ken Gerschler FAX 664-6384 City of Central Point Planning Department 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Re: Oak Glen Padlot Subdivision, file #06048 Dear Ken, The subject property is currently served by two connections to the 8 inch sewer main on Freemazt Road. The existing services must be located and sealed at the property line when the existing building is removed. One service can later be extended to serve Lot 1. Lots 2-4 will require a mainline extension along Oak Street. This extension can come from either the main line on Freeman Road or the main line to the West on Oak Street, near Bigham Road. The extension must be designed and constructed in accordance with RV S standards. The proposed development must comply with the water quality requirements of the Phase 2 NPDES permit which are currently being developed. We request that the following conditions be met prior to final plat approval: 1. Acceptance of the sanitary sewer by RVS. 2. Concurrence by RVS that stonnwater quality requirements of the Phase 2 NPDES permit have been met. Feel free to call me if you have any questions regazding sewer service for this project. Sincerely, i i /~--~?~- Carl Tappert, P.E. District Engineer K:\DATA\AGENCIES\CENTPT\PLANNG\SUBDIVISION\2006\06048-GLENOAK.DOC ATTACHMENT E PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Oak Glen Padlot Sinele Family Homes. FILE 06048 CIIECK NUMBER DESCRIPTION OF CONDITION BOX 1 of 3 A building permit application shall be filed within one year of the Planning Commission approval or the site plan approval shall become null and void. 2 of 3 The applicant shall comply with all federal, state and local regulations, standards and requirements applicable to the project area. 3 of 3 The applicant shall provide the City Planning Department with correspondence demonstrating compliance with the requirements of the Fire District. \\CPCHSI\PL\2006 LAND USE FILLS\06048 OAKGLENN PAULOT TP\06048SPRCOA.DOC PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A FOUR DWELLING TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT (Applicant: Skillman Brothers INC.) (37 2W 02CD Tax Lot 1600) Recitals 1. Applicant has submitted application to develop four (4) "padlot" single family homes located on property identified by Jackson County as Account 10134597 in the City of Central Point, Oregon. 2. On, March 7, 2006, the Central Point Planning Commission conducted aduly-noticed public hearing on the application, at which time it reviewed the City staff reports and heard testimony and comments on the application. Now, therefore; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Criteria Apnlicable to Decision. The following chapters of the Central Point Municipal Code apply to this application: A. Chapter 17.28, R-3, Residential Multiple Family District B. Chapter 17.60.210, Padlot Developments C. Chapter 17.64.040, Off-Street Parking Requirements D. Chapter 17.72, Site Plan Approval Section 2. Finding and Conclusions. The Planning Commission hereby adopts by reference all findings of fact set forth in the City staff reports, and concludes that, except where addressed in the conditions of approval, the applications and proposal comply with the requirements of the following chapters of the Central Point Municipal Code: A. Chapter 17.28, relating to uses, lot size, lot coverage, setback and building height. B. Chapter 17.60, relating to development requirements for padlots. C. Chapter 17.64, relating to off-street parking requirements. D. Chapter 17.72, relating to site plan approval. Planning Commission Resolution No. (03/7/2006) As defined by ICSC, a shopping center is a distinct type of land use separate from the individual retail/commercial uses that occupy the shopping center. A freestanding single entity large retail establishment that sells sporting goods, furniture, groceries, etc. under one roof is not, by definition, a shopping center. QUESTION 2: In what zoning districts are shopping centers allowed within Central Point? RESPONSE 2: Shopping centers, as a defined use, are allowed only in the C-4 District. Community shopping centers aze allowed in the C-4 District as a permitted use. In the purpose section of the C-N district reference is made to convenience shopping centers, but as a permitted, or conditional use, convenience shopping centers are not identified. Although not specifically defined, ICSC describes a convenience shopping center as a small shopping center anchored by uses such as a Jiffy Mart, etc. Figure 2 Figure 3 ~~ ~; z x =.< n ~".~ 3 s eo 76 ~7 Figure 4 QUESTION 3: What is a Large Retail Establishment? RESPONSE 3: Large Retail Establishments are single entity freestanding large retail operators. They are often referred to as "Big Boxes". Examples include Albertson's, Wal-Mart, Fred Meyer, Safeway, G.I. Joe, Nordstrom, Pets Mart, Office Max, the Grange, Big R, Target, etc. Although generally freestanding they can be located in a shopping center. There is no single definitive definition of when a large retail establishment becomes a "Large Retail Establishment." With the recent concern over "Big Box" development many communities have prepared ordinances regulating 2 'iii ,y q, c ,..; 3 ~2 3:t S ~. ~~ , <rsr. F ~~. ~~'~ f6 sz 18 Paoe 2 of 4 "Large Retail Establishments". These "Big Box" ordinances establish by definition the size threshold fora "Large Retail Establishment". Figure 5 represents a survey of "Big Box" ordinances from 28 cities and identifies the maximum allowable size "Big Box". As illustrated in Figure 5 the maximum size for a "Large Retail establishment" vazies considerably from community to community. The average maximum size is 68,000 sq. ft. 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 (50,000) x ~ ~ m m 1 0 ~ w o ~ ~ c c m° vi ~ ¢ E b o ~ U City & Population o ~ - m ° ffi °o m c~ E ~~ m ~" ° ~ o y `m ~ ~ Z U N d N m a O QUESTION 4: Does the City currently allow freestanding Large Retail Establishments? RESPONSE 4: Although not specifically defined the City does allow certain types of uses that could be classified as "Large Retail Establishments". As an example in the C-N, C-2, C-4, and C-5 districts drug stores are permitted. In the C-2 and C-5 districts supermarkets, sporting goods, general apparel are permitted. These use types are commonly associated with large retail establishments and would be allowed as freestanding large retail establishments. Figure 5 LARGE RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT MAXIMUM GFA vs CITY POPULATION -_. 1___. _ _._ _ ___ t Maximum GFA Allowed -t-City Population 1 Q ~ ~ S ¢' F- Y T} Q Q } Q ~¢ z v v Q a Q v O O ~ W ~ ~ S T t- ~ i- ~ Q, ~ LL LL ~ ~ L O _ W = z W - O O z~ C Q, M A h Y 'O ~ A ~ C g N ~ g y C z C z E ~ X ~ C _ ~ T-+ Z~ z ' z g R _ ~ E o «! m S + ~ ~ ,°~ _ v ~ .f? o o f o ~ n ~ ~ U iJ o ~- - m_ .= ~ __??_ r m._. t..N.. m y 5 ~ m cti ro y 1- F- m !- m p v ~ o N_ Page 3 of 4 Table 1. ICSC Shopping Center Definitions Type of Square Feet Primary Shopping Center (Including Number Anchor Trade Concept Anchors) Acreage of Type of Anchors Ratio* Area** Anchors Neighborhood Convenience 30,000 - 3 - 15 I or more Supermazkets 30 - 3 miles Center 150,000 50% Community General 100,000 - 10 - 40 2 or more Discount department 40 - 3 - 6 Center Merchandise; 350,000 store; supermarket; 60% miles Convenience drug; home improvement; lazge specialty department store; fashion a arel Regional Center General 400,000 - 40 - 100 2 or more Full-line department 50 - 5 - 15 Merchandise; 800,000 store; jr. department 70% miles Fashion (mall, store; mass typically merchant; discount enclosed) depamnent store; fashion a azel Super-Regional Similar to 800,000+ 60 - 120 3 or more Full-line department 50 -70% 5 - 25 Center Regional store; jr. department miles Center but has store; mass more variety merchant; fashion and assortment a arel Fashion/Specialty Higher End; 80,000 - 5 - 25 N/A Fashion N/A/ 5 - IS Center Fashion 250,000 miles Oriented Lifestyle Center Upscale Typically 10 - 40 0 - 2 Not usually 0 - 50% 8 - 12 National Chain 150,000 - anchored in the miles Specialty 500,000, but traditional sense but Stores; Dining can be may include book and smaller or store; other large- Entertainment larger. format specialty in Outdoor retailers; multi-plex Setting cinema; small de artment store. Power Center Category- 250,000 - 25 - 80 3 or more Category killer; 75 - 5 -10 Dominant 600,000 home improvement; 90% miles anchors; few discount department Small Tenants store; warehouse club, oft= rice Theme/Festival Leisure; 80,000 - 5 - 20 N/A Restaurants; N/A N?A Center Tourist- 250,000 entertainment Oriented; Retail and Service Outlet Center Manufacturer's 50,000 - 10 - 50 N/A Manufacturer's N/A 25 - 75 Outlet Stores 400,000 outlet stores miles Paee 4 of 4